 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
19 messages in net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp[c-nsp] Re: Source address on BGP pee...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Piltrafilla | Jan 14, 2005 8:13 am | |
| Mark Tinka | Jan 14, 2005 8:46 am | |
| McCallum, Robert | Jan 14, 2005 9:00 am | |
| Daniel Ginsburg | Jan 14, 2005 9:04 am | |
| Erdem Sener | Jan 14, 2005 9:09 am | |
| Marko Milivojevic | Jan 14, 2005 9:17 am | |
| Mark Tinka | Jan 14, 2005 9:19 am | |
| Rick Cossey | Jan 14, 2005 9:52 am | |
| Jared Mauch | Jan 14, 2005 10:02 am | |
| Stephen J. Wilcox | Jan 14, 2005 10:34 am | |
| Piltrafilla | Jan 17, 2005 11:27 am | |
| Brian Feeny | Jan 17, 2005 11:37 am | |
| Piltrafilla | Jan 17, 2005 6:59 pm | |
| Brian Feeny | Jan 17, 2005 7:18 pm | |
| Michael K. Smith | Jan 17, 2005 10:30 pm | |
| Piltrafilla | Jan 18, 2005 3:33 am | |
| Piltrafilla | Jan 18, 2005 4:49 am | |
| Michael K. Smith | Jan 18, 2005 11:52 am | |
| Piltrafilla | Jan 24, 2005 8:01 am |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | [c-nsp] Re: Source address on BGP peering set up | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Michael K. Smith (mksm...@noanet.net) | |
| Date: | Jan 17, 2005 10:30:21 pm | |
| List: | net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp | |
Hello:
Am I missing something, or why couldn't you just set up two separate neighbor statements for the two IP addresses?
Neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 65000 Neighbor 192.168.0.1 remote-as 65000
Mike
On 1/17/05 3:59 PM, "Piltrafilla" <piltrafilla at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Brian,
If I correctly understood your explanation, you mean that I should replace primary IP address on peering interface, then configuring the old IP address on a loopback and finally setting up static routes to neighbors to peering interface. Isn't on that way?
For keeping ARP going on with neighbors, in case they do not have the same config as you, I suppose that proxy-arp should be configured. And I do not really like that option.
Thanks for your reply, :)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:39:04 -0600, Brian Feeny <signal at shreve.net> wrote:
I can understand that you are doing a migration from one network to another. However, there are probably easier ways of doing this. Migrate the network, and then later migrate the BGP neighbors, in other words, leave them numbered out of legacy space until the last thing.
or
Use a loopback address on the Cisco, number that out of the new IP space, or just some other IP space, and use that as the update-source.
Brian
On Jan 17, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Piltrafilla wrote:
Hi people,
First of all, thank you for all your replies, I'm sorry for the delay in my answer.
With your feedback I have tried a BGP peering on my home lab between a Cisco and OpenBSD bgpd:
Cisco primary 10.0.0.1 secondary 192.168.0.1 OpenBSD primary 10.0.0.2 secondary 192.168.0.2
On OpenBSD bgpd configuration I have set up local-address for peer 10.0.0.1:
neighbor 10.0.0.1 { local-address 10.0.0.2 remote-as 65500 }
After configuration on both sides, I did a clear ip bgp 192.168.0.2 on the Cisco side to force reestablishing the peering as a client (ephemeral to 179). That's the tcpdump on the OpenBSD side:
10.0.0.1.15357 > 192.168.0.2.179: S 2018010072:2018010072(0) win 16384 10.0.0.1.15357 > 192.168.0.2.179: S 2018010072:2018010072(0) win 16384
Although Cisco router has a connected secondary IP to peer 192.168.0.2, Cisco tries to set up the peering with the primary address.
A few seconds later, OpenBSD successfully establishes peering with the Cisco box as a client (ephemeral to 179) because of the possibility of configuring local-address:
192.168.0.2.46380 > 192.168.0.1.179: S 957503115:957503115(0) win 65535 192.168.0.1.179 > 192.168.0.2.46380: S 949964186:949964186(0) ack 957503116 win 16384 192.168.0.2.46380 > 192.168.0.1.179: . ack 1 win 65535 192.168.0.2.46380 > 192.168.0.1.179: P 1:40(39) ack 1 win 65535 : BGP [|BGP OPEN] (DF) [tos 0xc0]
I know that for many of you, this config could seem in someway really stupid. That config was thought for a temporary peer migration not for a definitive config.
Any comments on the results?
Take Care,
-- Carlos
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:34:32 +0000 (GMT), Stephen J. Wilcox <steve at telecomplete.co.uk> wrote:
I thought I'd chip in as everyone else has had a go at this..
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Piltrafilla wrote:
Anyone knows how BGP on a Cisco router choose source IP address for peering establishment if no "update-source" command is applied to neighbor? Is it only the primary IP address on the closest interface to neighbor?
update-source will use the primary address, if no update source is applied it will use the ip on the outgoing interface
For instance, let's say that you would like to set up a peering using a secondary IP address to between two directly-connected neighbors. Is it setting up loopbacks, static /32 routes and update-source on the neighbors' config the only way to do it?
no you can just config it like any other ebgp directly connected peer
On bgpd of OpenBSD you could set up a "local-address" parameter per neighbor or group that sets up source IP address used for that peering. I haven't found any similar parameter on cisco bgp neighbors' config.
it doesnt have it
Steve